My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
My Stuff
On The Web
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5


Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 6, 2014

Aug 3

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on priorities for the congregation This appeared on Heidelblog

Why isn't working for justice outside the congregation an issue when it was for the OT prophets and even for James?


August 5

To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing Dylan Pahman's attempt to use classical figures to define social justice. This appeared in the acton blog.

The question I have is why, as Dylan Pahman did in the article linked to above, define social justice exclusively from what was said in the far past rather than include what was said in the modern period of turmoil where Social Justice was being debated and fought for? Why the exclusive or treatment in the definition of social justice? Yes, what was said in the past is important. But what about what was said more recently especially when times were volatile? Do not King and Gandhi have something to teach Justinian and even Kuyper? Or, to adapt a Martin Luther King statement, do the latter two have everything to teach and nothing to learn?

Those who lean to tradition and authoritarianism tend to make the study of social justice an exclusive-or venture where we focus on the past because we exalt it over the present. Considering the way social justice has been pursued by our contemporaries, such a venture seems deliberately self-sabotaging.


To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the role human trafficking in our border crisis. This appeared in the Acton blog.

What is missing in this tragic account is the role that the US played in creating such a hostile environment for at least one of the above mentioned countries. The US supported strong-armed paramilitary troops that would help put down any changes or rebellions. Many of these troops were trained in the US and were there to help implement our government's desires with regard to who was in charge and what policies they were pursuing.

Honduras is possibly another situation because it isn't as evident that the US was involved there in facilitating the regime change that happened there. But it is possible that that was the case.

We should include US foreign policies and trade agreements when  discussing our immigration problem.

No comments: